Puma Punku

steve mccarron · 6th June 2012, 08:42 AM

I have over 30 years experience in building restoration and am probably the only person in the uk to have carved architectural granite with fire hardened tools (not tungsten tipped) which requires constant re-tempering and re-tipping.
I am also experienced in carving basalt. I have vast experience of hand work and the use of power tools. In other words, I have worked all the stones mentioned, in all sorts of ways in these debates.

Why haven't experienced hands on craftspersons ever been consulted to put forward their views on this particular architectural marvel and other similar architectural anomalies accross the world. In our industry, the worst and least practical persons hypothesising about any aspect of our profession (and getting it wrong) are the very same characters served up to pass comment on something they have no knowlege of to start off with. I canott believe some of the proposals they have for the production of these masonry units. I completeley support the notion that even with the tools we have today it would be difficult to replicate this work and still time consuming. One of the most exausting challenges to a mason is working masonry blind, ie, into a dead end. Even after drilling a multiude of holes to facilitate the removal of masonry by chiseling and splitting it is a daunting task.

The 'H' stones all required this technique, and then on a material that is defiantly ductile.

The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site.

The reason that debate continues on this subject is because people who know better refuse to be fobbed of by the propriatorial nonsense of copper drills, saws and suchlike by 'So called' experts. I know loads of them, we all do, by and large their opinions count for nothing.

For your enjoyment I have enclosed a picture of a capital I have carved in Aber marble. It weighes 15 tons and adjacent to it are other capitals, not replaced, carved by the Victorians using the tools available at the time. The difference is VERY obvious, as they struggled with this very hard stone with their 'fire hardened technology'

Steve McCarron

RobDegraves · 6th June 2012, 09:10 AM

Well... obviously you are better with masonry than with posting... since you have not enclosed any picture.

(No big, it comes with a new account).

To be more serious...

I'm not a stone mason, I'm a historian. However, you would be mistaken if you think that the theories historians advance as to how it was made, or the construction of any historical building, are brought forward without testing them to see if they could have been done with the tools and techniques available then.

I personally know a number of people who are actively working on a number of such projects. Since my specialty is medieval, not ancient Andean, those projects tend to be of that nature... for example the various Drekar or Knarr ships. I do some of that sort of thing myself, in a more limited fashion.

Puma Punku is indeed interesting as far as it's construction. However, many ancient civilizations managed to do remarkable things even with primitive tools. I really like this guy for example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs It's interesting to see what you can do with a bit of cleverness and effort.

How one last point that I would like to phrase as a question...

How much better would your masonry work be if I told you that you would be killed if you didn't do better?

GeeMack · 6th June 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I have over 30 years experience in building restoration and am probably the only person in the uk to have carved architectural granite with fire hardened tools (not tungsten tipped) which requires constant re-tempering and re-tipping.
I am also experienced in carving basalt. I have vast experience of hand work and the use of power tools. In other words, I have worked all the stones mentioned, in all sorts of ways in these debates.

Why haven't experienced hands on craftspersons ever been consulted to put forward their views on this particular architectural marvel and other similar architectural anomalies accross the world. In our industry, the worst and least practical persons hypothesising about any aspect of our profession (and getting it wrong) are the very same characters served up to pass comment on something they have no knowlege of to start off with. I canott believe some of the proposals they have for the production of these masonry units. I completeley support the notion that even with the tools we have today it would be difficult to replicate this work and still time consuming. One of the most exausting challenges to a mason is working masonry blind, ie, into a dead end. Even after drilling a multiude of holes to facilitate the removal of masonry by chiseling and splitting it is a daunting task.

The 'H' stones all required this technique, and then on a material that is defiantly ductile.

The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site.

The reason that debate continues on this subject is because people who know better refuse to be fobbed of by the propriatorial nonsense of copper drills, saws and suchlike by 'So called' experts. I know loads of them, we all do, by and large their opinions count for nothing.

For your enjoyment I have enclosed a picture of a capital I have carved in Aber marble. It weighes 15 tons and adjacent to it are other capitals, not replaced, carved by the Victorians using the tools available at the time. The difference is VERY obvious, as they struggled with this very hard stone with their 'fire hardened technology'

Steve McCarron

This issue has been discussed at length in some of the UFO/alien craft threads on this forum. You admit not knowing how the Puma Punku monuments were created. So? There are probably lots of things that were manufactured and you don't know how it was done. Is there a point aside from you acknowledging your lack of understanding?

Reality Check · 6th June 2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the narrow channels and the whole site does not defy logic or even "means of material production".

The channels would be relatively easy to produce in andesite and sandstone even using stone tools
Were the pyramids at Puma Punku built by humans? (the answer is yes).

Quote:

The Tiwanaku were not a stone age civilization. They were adept metalworkers. However, many of the tools used could have been "stone age" tools, where metallic tools were not required.

Also see The Mystery of Pumapunku (the actual mystery is which of the several means to transport stone blocks was used).

The Don · 7th June 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Also see The Mystery of Pumapunku (the actual mystery is which of the several means to transport stone blocks was used).

Steve Mccarron is familiar with this one - he has posted the last comment.

Thank you though for the rest of us.

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 03:41 AM

How can I make this clearer to you. Can you tell me how the stone channels would be relativeley 'easy' to make using stone tools?

Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance. What I am saying is that, on the basis of what I DO know, none of the proffered theories stand up to real scrutiny. Now, what I HOPED for was somebody to offer REAL proposals which are plausible for the production of these masonry units without just refering to airy fairy postulations that have never been proven in realistic terms.

It's one thing to make these claims, but another to be confronted by a monolith and put them into realistic practice.

What I hoped for, was a response from somebody with a proven track record in practical stonemasonry to debate with, not to be told of MY ignorance!

On dartmoor, the victorians with the largest and most advanced stone cutting equipment used motorised frame saws, with patent steel blades fed with diamond grit. Operating continuasly for 8 hours 5 inches would be cut!

In reply to the question of productivity and threat....
It's a shame, I can't upload at the moment, but there is nobody in the uk who can carve an acanthus leaf out of marble as fast and as well as I. I could not be threatened to work any better or faster, it is not possible. Stonemasonry at this level is an expression of free determination and love, not slavery. This comment belongs in the bin, along with other older theories of pyramid labour sourcing.

The video of the stone moving is nothing new to me as I have manipulated large stones all my working life. When he spins the stone on another stone, we would say he is using a "Miller".
The luxury for him, is he is manipulating stones or cast blocks similar to s-6-s, or sawn six sides. They will glide around on top of each other on dust and nothing more. Easy to do with modern masonry, but before the advent of this sort of production more difficult. Were the Stonehege blocks manufactured in this regular way. It is a feat to produce these things "Before you even move them" The last time I used stones this big, the supplier called up and asked if I was building a castle!

Anyway, I did not start this thread to discuss the manipulation of masonry, just it's ancient manufacture. If you are interested, how do YOU think obelisks were erected. I know, and I have done it. Answers on a post card to the usual address.

Dissapointing so far, I had hoped for better.

If you would like to see some of my work, drop me a line to this e-mail
steve@stevemccarron.co.uk

Dancing David · 7th June 2012, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

How can I make this clearer to you. Can you tell me how the stone channels would be relativeley 'easy' to make using stone tools?

Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance. What I am saying is that, on the basis of what I DO know, none of the proffered theories stand up to real scrutiny. Now, what I HOPED for was somebody to offer REAL proposals which are plausible for the production of these masonry units without just refering to airy fairy postulations that have never been proven in realistic terms.

It's one thing to make these claims, but another to be confronted by a monolith and put them into realistic practice.

What I hoped for, was a response from somebody with a proven track record in practical stonemasonry to debate with, not to be told of MY ignorance!

On dartmoor, the victorians with the largest and most advanced stone cutting equipment used motorised frame saws, with patent steel blades fed with diamond grit. Operating continuasly for 8 hours 5 inches would be cut!

In reply to the question of productivity and threat....
It's a shame, I can't upload at the moment, but there is nobody in the uk who can carve an acanthus leaf out of marble as fast and as well as I. I could not be threatened to work any better or faster, it is not possible. Stonemasonry at this level is an expression of free determination and love, not slavery. This comment belongs in the bin, along with other older theories of pyramid labour sourcing.

Dissapointing so far, I had hoped for better.

If you would like to see some of my work
steve@stevemccarron.co.uk

Welcome to the Forum!

Sorry , incredulity does not an argument make.

jiggeryqua · 7th June 2012, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Welcome to the Forum!

Sorry , incredulity does not an argument make.

No, but "I do not understand this (even from a position of knowledge and expertise" does not make an argument either. In Steve's case, very clearly, it makes a request for understanding of how it was possible. He's new, so he may be surprised that he gets so many empty responses that do nothing but promote the skeptical credentials of the poster. "It's not aliens, duh" does not an argument make either (especially when no such claim has been made). How was it done, DD? Credulity does not make much of an answer, but it does at least assure those around you that you don't believe in aliens...

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 04:48 AM

I'm having difficulty here deciphereing the relies I'm getting!
I just wan't to remove obsefecation and establish some clarity. I am as good as I say and knowlegable on these subjects. I have been called in the past Britains finest stonemason. I am either a fake or an expert. Therefore, somebody with some knowlege must be interested in having a dialouge to a/ establish this, b/ to discuss the plausibility of the theories. The gulf that exists here is far greater than the construction of ancient wooden ships. This is the equivelant of finding composite concrete yacht hulls in biblical times!

The Don · 7th June 2012, 05:21 AM

Well as I understand it from reading the article the problem as stated is quite different from the actual problem.

- The Tiwanaku had metal tools
- The stone was considerably softer than portrayed

Please bear in mind I have no specific knowledge of this case, it's just that I've read the article. The Tiwanaku also had a lot of time and were presumably well motivated.

RobDegraves · 7th June 2012, 05:54 AM

@steve mccarron

OK... couple of quick points that stick out for me...

1. Holy cows, use the spell check function. Your last post was difficult to read.

2. You came to a skeptic's forum to discuss specific points of stone masonry. That's like going to a cooking forum to discuss particle physics. Have you posted any of this in a stone mason's setting? Or even a history forum?

3.

Quote:

I have been called in the past Britains finest stonemason. I am either a fake or an expert.

The only article that I have found that might mention you, states that you have no formal training of any kind...

Quote:

As he is about to start the largest figurative stone sculpture in living memory in England, consider a man who has had no formal training of any kind. "I've only just discovered that," said Dr Coppack. "But then you don't question qualifications when a man's that good. He's a complete natural."

In which case I would hardly call you an expert. It's possible I got the wrong article though..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4...ton-woman.html

4.

Quote:

The gulf that exists here is far greater than the construction of ancient wooden ships.

Taking your own criteria, I don't think you can compare it to the construction of ancient wooden ships without being a ship builder yourself.

Additionally, there are a lot of impressive building from the ancient world that we know exactly how they were built... the Parthenon, roman architecture, etc. A lot of it rivals Puma Punku easily.

GeeMack · 7th June 2012, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I'm having difficulty here deciphereing the relies I'm getting!

Let me make it simple for you. You've admitted that, despite your claim of having some expertise in stone carving, you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made.

You've expressed your incredulity regarding the explanations offered by archaeologists, experts in the field of analyzing such ancient monuments. Apparently you reject those explanations based on the fact that you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made.

So, okay, you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made. Nobody here seems to be disagreeing with you on that point. We accept the fact that you do not know. Do you have a point to make other than admitting your incredulity and lack of knowledge?

Tiktaalik · 7th June 2012, 06:00 AM

While he specializes in movement of large blocks rather than the construction of such stones, www.theforgottentechnology.com is instructive and fun...

Dancing David · 7th June 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

No, but "I do not understand this (even from a position of knowledge and expertise" does not make an argument either. In Steve's case, very clearly, it makes a request for understanding of how it was possible. He's new, so he may be surprised that he gets so many empty responses that do nothing but promote the skeptical credentials of the poster. "It's not aliens, duh" does not an argument make either (especially when no such claim has been made). How was it done, DD? Credulity does not make much of an answer, but it does at least assure those around you that you don't believe in aliens...

I am merely responding to what I could understand of the OP.

I am not currently looking into ancient masonry techniques. I would assume it was done over time with the tools at hand. I know a little bit more about meso america but not much. The Aztec variation of the Toltecs did some amazing rock carving as did the Olmec 2000 years earlier. I have never heard why they could not have done it without advanced techniques.

Now what I would say is that some of the techniques may have been very slow. But I am always just amazed that when we have all this carving all over the world from the early neolithic on, someone singles out one set and says 'they could not have done it'.

Cathedrals in Europe were often multi-generational and took hundreds of years to complete, and no one suggests some hidden mystery for them.

Dancing David · 7th June 2012, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Well as I understand it from reading the article the problem as stated is quite different from the actual problem.

- The Tiwanaku had metal tools
- The stone was considerably softer than portrayed

Now I know this to be the case in Mayan and Mixtec construction, the stone was incredibly soft and got harder from exposure.

AdMan · 7th June 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance.

It doesn't imply ignorance, it means ignorance.

Steve, have you heard of the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity? You should look it up.

Harpo · 7th June 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If you are interested, how do YOU think obelisks were erected.

[/thread]

quadraginta · 7th June 2012, 07:41 AM

@ steve mccarron

Two questions.

What does the relative hardness and difficulty of working granite and basalt have to do with structures made from sandstone? Sandstone was a common and popular building material all over the world in pre-modern era precisely because of its softness.

Why does the amount of time required to do something with more primitive tools cast any doubt upon anything? Lots of stuff took longer to do. So what?

jiggeryqua · 7th June 2012, 07:50 AM

Ok, I am tired of bucking the trend. Let me join in.

"I don't know the first thing about masonry, but I do know there's no aliens".

Gosh, that does feel good. I know no more than I did, and neither does the OP. But only one of us wants to and it's the other guy, so who cares? So far, we have no reason to suppose he believes in aliens. In fact, given that's a stonecutter (even though nobody ever gave him a test or a certificate? what's that fallacy again?), we can reasonably assume that he wants to know how it was done.

I may be wrong, he may reveal that he wants to know how to summon aliens to do it for him. He might, at that, he's new and that's always suspicious... After all, why ask at a skeptics' forum? Because people do ascribe it to aliens. It's a smart place to look for people who know how to show it wasn't. Alas...

MG1962 · 7th June 2012, 08:02 AM

History is loaded with "How did they do that" It is what makes these things so interesting. We can speculate forever about the who why and hows. The point remains, someone sometime figured it out.

A classic example was Caesars' second bridge over the Rhine, constructed in a "few days" Historians for centuries had scoffed at this notion, but the details had never been tested.

A few years back a team of army engineers under the guidance of archeologists decided to see just how long such a bridge should have taken using only surviving instructions and techniques of the Romans. The results were the subject of a documentary.

The first pylon to be driven took almost an entire day, and many began to fear the story truly was a legend. At the end of the second day they were driving pylons in 45 minutes. The commander of the engineers suggested that the Romans, with their experience could get that time down to 20 minutes.

The final outcome was not the understanding of how fast they built the bridge, but in fact it could have been done a lot faster if they had chosen too.

MG1962 · 7th June 2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

@ steve mccarron

Two questions.

What does the relative hardness and difficulty of working granite and basalt have to do with structures made from sandstone? Sandstone was a common and popular building material all over the world in pre-modern era precisely because of its softness.

Why does the amount of time required to do something with more primitive tools cast any doubt upon anything? Lots of stuff took longer to do. So what?

I can field this - using copper tools on their own, granite is virtually unworkable. The Egyptians got around this in their typical pragmatic style.

They would fashion a copper saw with a straight blunt edge. Sprinkle sand in the desired cutting point and let abrasion do its things. Slow, time consuming but ultimately very pleasing to the Pharaoh paying their bills

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 08:44 AM

I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not.

I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge. I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise.

I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson. But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic. At least one of you says that iron tools were used. I did not know this. It's a move forward from an earlier comment that stone tools were adequate.

quadraginta · 7th June 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I can field this - using copper tools on their own, granite is virtually unworkable. The Egyptians got around this in their typical pragmatic style.

They would fashion a copper saw with a straight blunt edge. Sprinkle sand in the desired cutting point and let abrasion do its things. Slow, time consuming but ultimately very pleasing to the Pharaoh paying their bills

You're fielding in the wrong ballpark.

Steve started his OP with an exposition on his personal testament to the difficulty of working granite and basalt, and segued from that into something about the Pumapunku stonework ...

... which is made from sandstone.

Sandstone is quite workable by any number of tools, from tools made from the metals available to the Tiwanaku at the time to tools made from harder stone.

As you point out, even granite is workable with techniques available to that era's tech. And the evidence is clear that they were willing to take whatever time was needed.

If you're not in a hurry it's amazing what can be accomplished.

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 08:50 AM

Have you ever worked granite? Where did you hear of this method, who suggested it, is there any evidence, can you get a straight cut when the copper starts to warp and stretch sideways. Have you seen this done on a large slab of basalt or granite?????

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 08:54 AM

Sandstone is a generic term, some cut blocks will give you papercuts if you get to close. Spoken with all the asertiveness of the blitheley ignorant. Amazing what you can achieve with time, but short on facts just bold slogans. Tut, tut..

MG1962 · 7th June 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

You're fielding in the wrong ballpark.

Steve started his OP with an exposition on his personal testament to the difficulty of working granite and basalt, and segued from that into something about the Pumapunku stonework ...

... which is made from sandstone.

No the site is a mix of sandstone and andesite, which is a soft basalt. My point was if someone could work granite, then techniques for andesite would also exist

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 08:57 AM

Actually, Andesite is more difficult stone to work in this way than basalt, can you say why?

MG1962 · 7th June 2012, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Have you ever worked granite? Where did you hear of this method, who suggested it, is there any evidence, can you get a straight cut when the copper starts to warp and stretch sideways. Have you seen this done on a large slab of basalt or granite?????

Yes - here

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286157/

The documentary spends about 15 minutes with Arab stone cutters who demonstrated the technique

quadraginta · 7th June 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not.

I don't think you have been very clear about which explanations you find unconvincing. You might want to share that part first.

Quote:

I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge. I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise.

I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson. But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic. At least one of you says that iron tools were used. I did not know this. It's a move forward from an earlier comment that stone tools were adequate.

I don't know if they worked in iron, but they certainly worked in bronze (the material the cleats were made from that went into those "H" shaped holes), which is harder than the early iron tools were, anyway.

I see no reason stone tools could not have been used as well, since they would have had access to stone far harder than sandstone. Flint or obsidian would certainly do the job.

If you're not in a hurry, that is.

EHocking · 7th June 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sandstone is a generic term... Spoken with all the asertiveness of the blitheley ignorant.

You call yourself a stone mason and believe that "sandstone" is a generic term.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Quote:

Amazing what you can achieve with time, but short on facts just bold slogans. Tut, tut..

This deserves another.

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 09:20 AM

Sorry, that is not Andesite it is oolitic limestone, the same as cotswold stone. Easily hewn, easily cut with metal tools, easily worked with carpenters tools. It's like carving cheese. They use the same tools now as we did for our first buildings. The jad pick and racer to extract the stone. You cannot do this even with a slightly softer basalt as andesite has been called by one of your contributors

quadraginta · 7th June 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

No the site is a mix of sandstone and andesite, which is a soft basalt. My point was if someone could work granite, then techniques for andesite would also exist

I don't disagree.

My understanding was that the big stones (the ones with the 'blind' holes and precision joinery) were sandstone, and that the andesite was used for facings and carvings.

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 09:24 AM

Obsidian is to brittle, you would take an age to make a tool out of it, only for it to shatter, same with flint. If you were carving a soft limestone without to much fossil inclusion you might get away withn it, but otherwise no. Did you know that when a castle was built, there were more blacksmiths than any other tradespersons, including the masons. Simply to keep the masons in chisels and to keep them tempered.

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 09:31 AM

It amazes me how many times people who should know better make sweeping statements about the durability and hardness's of various types of stones with little or no knowlege. That is why I have tried to make the point that the use of the word sandstone was being done generically as if we are supposed to accept by term only its softness and type. Just because something is made of sandstone does not make it easier to work. Your sarcasm has no place here.

GeeMack · 7th June 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not.

You are saying you don't know how the monuments were made. We are willing to agree that you don't know. No argument there, eh?

Quote:

I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge.

You aren't arguing for anything. You are admitting your incredulity and your lack of knowledge. So?

Quote:

I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise.

Very knowledgeable or not, you've admitted that you do not know how the Puma Punku monuments were made. Do you have a point other than to admit your incredulity and lack of knowledge?

Quote:

I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson.

Do you have a viewpoint other than saying you don't know how and don't believe it was done according to conventional explanations offered by experts in the relevant archaeology?

Quote:

But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic.

I have entertained this. I've asked a few times if you have a point to make other than declaring your ignorance and incredulity. Do you?

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 09:40 AM

There are lots sandstones, and a lot of them are not supplied as such in their name. Also sandstone is just an umbrella term for the complex faily of stone types, just as Bath stone is a generic term for many types of oolitic limestones from that area. Apology?

jiggeryqua · 7th June 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

You are saying you don't know how the monuments were made. We are willing to agree that you don't know. No argument there, eh?

You aren't arguing for anything. You are admitting your incredulity and your lack of knowledge. So?

Very knowledgeable or not, you've admitted that you do not know how the Puma Punku monuments were made. Do you have a point other than to admit your incredulity and lack of knowledge?

Do you have a viewpoint other than saying you don't know how and don't believe it was done according to conventional explanations offered by experts in the relevant archaeology?

I have entertained this. I've asked a few times if you have a point to make other than declaring your ignorance and incredulity. Do you?

So to summarise, he's admitting he doesn't know (and, crucially, asking if anyone does, such as one might do when seeking knowledge). Meanwhile, you don't know either, but are cunningly misdirecting us so we don't notice. You do reference 'conventional explanations offered by experts in the relevant archaeology', but alas, you fail to link them. Credulity and incredulity are one and the same here. Neither of you know. One of you is interested in finding out, the other just accepts that 'experts' know. Which is just 'it wasn't aliens!' again. But nobody has mentioned aliens. There's more reason to believe it's a genuine interest in finding out how humans did it, but I have acknowledged the need of some posters to reassure us all that they still don't believe in aliens...

quarky · 7th June 2012, 09:52 AM

Igneous stone, unlike sedimentary stone, has no bedding plane; its not striated, and is, in some ways, less prone to breaking where you don't want it to break.
Hard flint was shaped with much softer antler material into sharp points, yet this hardly explains the construction of stone walls of the sort at Machu-Pichu. I find these monuments in rock to be the most mysterious of all constructions.

I'm not suggesting woo. But I'd love to know how it was done.

Btw, most classification of stone, other than chemical, is a matter of degrees and age.
Sandstone can vary amazingly, depending on its age; the load on top, and the inclusion of various 'contaminants', some of which make it harder; some which make it more crumbly; yet, all are called sandstone.

Stone is not as static as it appears. Its caught in a process when we decide to use it.
Limestone is also quite variable, depending on similar factors, yet, the moniker 'limestone' tends to lump it together.

Welcome to jref, stone cutter.

rcfieldz · 7th June 2012, 10:02 AM

Can I hire the OP to construct my home?

steve mccarron · 7th June 2012, 10:11 AM

I don't believe anyone other than man created this architecture, but this place is not alone in asking more questions than it gives answers.

Now we have a fellow stonemason on board, I wonder what he thinks about carving basalt with fire hardened or steel tools for instance. It is staggeringly hard just to gain entry into the material, let alone carve it. Also, he might agree that on castle construction there were more blacksmiths employed than masons to keep them in chisels to work the hard stone.

6th June 2012, 08:42 AM	#1
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Puma Punku I have over 30 years experience in building restoration and am probably the only person in the uk to have carved architectural granite with fire hardened tools (not tungsten tipped) which requires constant re-tempering and re-tipping. I am also experienced in carving basalt. I have vast experience of hand work and the use of power tools. In other words, I have worked all the stones mentioned, in all sorts of ways in these debates. Why haven't experienced hands on craftspersons ever been consulted to put forward their views on this particular architectural marvel and other similar architectural anomalies accross the world. In our industry, the worst and least practical persons hypothesising about any aspect of our profession (and getting it wrong) are the very same characters served up to pass comment on something they have no knowlege of to start off with. I canott believe some of the proposals they have for the production of these masonry units. I completeley support the notion that even with the tools we have today it would be difficult to replicate this work and still time consuming. One of the most exausting challenges to a mason is working masonry blind, ie, into a dead end. Even after drilling a multiude of holes to facilitate the removal of masonry by chiseling and splitting it is a daunting task. The 'H' stones all required this technique, and then on a material that is defiantly ductile. The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site. The reason that debate continues on this subject is because people who know better refuse to be fobbed of by the propriatorial nonsense of copper drills, saws and suchlike by 'So called' experts. I know loads of them, we all do, by and large their opinions count for nothing. For your enjoyment I have enclosed a picture of a capital I have carved in Aber marble. It weighes 15 tons and adjacent to it are other capitals, not replaced, carved by the Victorians using the tools available at the time. The difference is VERY obvious, as they struggled with this very hard stone with their 'fire hardened technology' Steve McCarron
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Last edited by steve mccarron; 6th June 2012 at 08:44 AM. Reason: spelling error

6th June 2012, 09:10 AM	#2
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	Well... obviously you are better with masonry than with posting... since you have not enclosed any picture. (No big, it comes with a new account). To be more serious... I'm not a stone mason, I'm a historian. However, you would be mistaken if you think that the theories historians advance as to how it was made, or the construction of any historical building, are brought forward without testing them to see if they could have been done with the tools and techniques available then. I personally know a number of people who are actively working on a number of such projects. Since my specialty is medieval, not ancient Andean, those projects tend to be of that nature... for example the various Drekar or Knarr ships. I do some of that sort of thing myself, in a more limited fashion. Puma Punku is indeed interesting as far as it's construction. However, many ancient civilizations managed to do remarkable things even with primitive tools. I really like this guy for example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs It's interesting to see what you can do with a bit of cleverness and effort. How one last point that I would like to phrase as a question... How much better would your masonry work be if I told you that you would be killed if you didn't do better?
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

6th June 2012, 05:30 PM	#4
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,809	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the narrow channels and the whole site does not defy logic or even "means of material production". The channels would be relatively easy to produce in andesite and sandstone even using stone tools Were the pyramids at Puma Punku built by humans? (the answer is yes). Quote: The Tiwanaku were not a stone age civilization. They were adept metalworkers. However, many of the tools used could have been "stone age" tools, where metallic tools were not required. Also see The Mystery of Pumapunku (the actual mystery is which of the several means to transport stone blocks was used).
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

7th June 2012, 03:41 AM	#6
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	How can I make this clearer to you. Can you tell me how the stone channels would be relativeley 'easy' to make using stone tools? Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance. What I am saying is that, on the basis of what I DO know, none of the proffered theories stand up to real scrutiny. Now, what I HOPED for was somebody to offer REAL proposals which are plausible for the production of these masonry units without just refering to airy fairy postulations that have never been proven in realistic terms. It's one thing to make these claims, but another to be confronted by a monolith and put them into realistic practice. What I hoped for, was a response from somebody with a proven track record in practical stonemasonry to debate with, not to be told of MY ignorance! On dartmoor, the victorians with the largest and most advanced stone cutting equipment used motorised frame saws, with patent steel blades fed with diamond grit. Operating continuasly for 8 hours 5 inches would be cut! In reply to the question of productivity and threat.... It's a shame, I can't upload at the moment, but there is nobody in the uk who can carve an acanthus leaf out of marble as fast and as well as I. I could not be threatened to work any better or faster, it is not possible. Stonemasonry at this level is an expression of free determination and love, not slavery. This comment belongs in the bin, along with other older theories of pyramid labour sourcing. The video of the stone moving is nothing new to me as I have manipulated large stones all my working life. When he spins the stone on another stone, we would say he is using a "Miller". The luxury for him, is he is manipulating stones or cast blocks similar to s-6-s, or sawn six sides. They will glide around on top of each other on dust and nothing more. Easy to do with modern masonry, but before the advent of this sort of production more difficult. Were the Stonehege blocks manufactured in this regular way. It is a feat to produce these things "Before you even move them" The last time I used stones this big, the supplier called up and asked if I was building a castle! Anyway, I did not start this thread to discuss the manipulation of masonry, just it's ancient manufacture. If you are interested, how do YOU think obelisks were erected. I know, and I have done it. Answers on a post card to the usual address. Dissapointing so far, I had hoped for better. If you would like to see some of my work, drop me a line to this e-mail steve@stevemccarron.co.uk
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Last edited by steve mccarron; 7th June 2012 at 04:37 AM. Reason: missed out further information

7th June 2012, 04:14 AM	#7
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by steve mccarron How can I make this clearer to you. Can you tell me how the stone channels would be relativeley 'easy' to make using stone tools? Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance. What I am saying is that, on the basis of what I DO know, none of the proffered theories stand up to real scrutiny. Now, what I HOPED for was somebody to offer REAL proposals which are plausible for the production of these masonry units without just refering to airy fairy postulations that have never been proven in realistic terms. It's one thing to make these claims, but another to be confronted by a monolith and put them into realistic practice. What I hoped for, was a response from somebody with a proven track record in practical stonemasonry to debate with, not to be told of MY ignorance! On dartmoor, the victorians with the largest and most advanced stone cutting equipment used motorised frame saws, with patent steel blades fed with diamond grit. Operating continuasly for 8 hours 5 inches would be cut! In reply to the question of productivity and threat.... It's a shame, I can't upload at the moment, but there is nobody in the uk who can carve an acanthus leaf out of marble as fast and as well as I. I could not be threatened to work any better or faster, it is not possible. Stonemasonry at this level is an expression of free determination and love, not slavery. This comment belongs in the bin, along with other older theories of pyramid labour sourcing. Dissapointing so far, I had hoped for better. If you would like to see some of my work steve@stevemccarron.co.uk Welcome to the Forum! Sorry , incredulity does not an argument make.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th June 2012, 01:01 PM	#3
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I have over 30 years experience in building restoration and am probably the only person in the uk to have carved architectural granite with fire hardened tools (not tungsten tipped) which requires constant re-tempering and re-tipping. I am also experienced in carving basalt. I have vast experience of hand work and the use of power tools. In other words, I have worked all the stones mentioned, in all sorts of ways in these debates. Why haven't experienced hands on craftspersons ever been consulted to put forward their views on this particular architectural marvel and other similar architectural anomalies accross the world. In our industry, the worst and least practical persons hypothesising about any aspect of our profession (and getting it wrong) are the very same characters served up to pass comment on something they have no knowlege of to start off with. I canott believe some of the proposals they have for the production of these masonry units. I completeley support the notion that even with the tools we have today it would be difficult to replicate this work and still time consuming. One of the most exausting challenges to a mason is working masonry blind, ie, into a dead end. Even after drilling a multiude of holes to facilitate the removal of masonry by chiseling and splitting it is a daunting task. The 'H' stones all required this technique, and then on a material that is defiantly ductile. The reason the narrow channels (1cmx1cm at) Puma Punku attract so much interest is that they defy every logic and means of material production, as does the whole site. The reason that debate continues on this subject is because people who know better refuse to be fobbed of by the propriatorial nonsense of copper drills, saws and suchlike by 'So called' experts. I know loads of them, we all do, by and large their opinions count for nothing. For your enjoyment I have enclosed a picture of a capital I have carved in Aber marble. It weighes 15 tons and adjacent to it are other capitals, not replaced, carved by the Victorians using the tools available at the time. The difference is VERY obvious, as they struggled with this very hard stone with their 'fire hardened technology' Steve McCarron This issue has been discussed at length in some of the UFO/alien craft threads on this forum. You admit not knowing how the Puma Punku monuments were created. So? There are probably lots of things that were manufactured and you don't know how it was done. Is there a point aside from you acknowledging your lack of understanding?

7th June 2012, 02:46 AM	#5
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,235	Originally Posted by Reality Check Also see The Mystery of Pumapunku (the actual mystery is which of the several means to transport stone blocks was used). Steve Mccarron is familiar with this one - he has posted the last comment. Thank you though for the rest of us.

7th June 2012, 04:22 AM	#8
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,897	Originally Posted by Dancing David Welcome to the Forum! Sorry , incredulity does not an argument make. No, but "I do not understand this (even from a position of knowledge and expertise" does not make an argument either. In Steve's case, very clearly, it makes a request for understanding of how it was possible. He's new, so he may be surprised that he gets so many empty responses that do nothing but promote the skeptical credentials of the poster. "It's not aliens, duh" does not an argument make either (especially when no such claim has been made). How was it done, DD? Credulity does not make much of an answer, but it does at least assure those around you that you don't believe in aliens...
	__________________ Things I have learned at jrEf: not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.

7th June 2012, 04:48 AM	#9
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	I'm having difficulty here deciphereing the relies I'm getting! I just wan't to remove obsefecation and establish some clarity. I am as good as I say and knowlegable on these subjects. I have been called in the past Britains finest stonemason. I am either a fake or an expert. Therefore, somebody with some knowlege must be interested in having a dialouge to a/ establish this, b/ to discuss the plausibility of the theories. The gulf that exists here is far greater than the construction of ancient wooden ships. This is the equivelant of finding composite concrete yacht hulls in biblical times!
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 05:21 AM	#10
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,235	Well as I understand it from reading the article the problem as stated is quite different from the actual problem. - The Tiwanaku had metal tools - The stone was considerably softer than portrayed Please bear in mind I have no specific knowledge of this case, it's just that I've read the article. The Tiwanaku also had a lot of time and were presumably well motivated.

7th June 2012, 05:54 AM	#11
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	@steve mccarron OK... couple of quick points that stick out for me... 1. Holy cows, use the spell check function. Your last post was difficult to read. 2. You came to a skeptic's forum to discuss specific points of stone masonry. That's like going to a cooking forum to discuss particle physics. Have you posted any of this in a stone mason's setting? Or even a history forum? 3. Quote: I have been called in the past Britains finest stonemason. I am either a fake or an expert. The only article that I have found that might mention you, states that you have no formal training of any kind... Quote: As he is about to start the largest figurative stone sculpture in living memory in England, consider a man who has had no formal training of any kind. "I've only just discovered that," said Dr Coppack. "But then you don't question qualifications when a man's that good. He's a complete natural." In which case I would hardly call you an expert. It's possible I got the wrong article though..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4...ton-woman.html 4. Quote: The gulf that exists here is far greater than the construction of ancient wooden ships. Taking your own criteria, I don't think you can compare it to the construction of ancient wooden ships without being a ship builder yourself. Additionally, there are a lot of impressive building from the ancient world that we know exactly how they were built... the Parthenon, roman architecture, etc. A lot of it rivals Puma Punku easily.
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

7th June 2012, 05:58 AM	#12
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I'm having difficulty here deciphereing the relies I'm getting! Let me make it simple for you. You've admitted that, despite your claim of having some expertise in stone carving, you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made. You've expressed your incredulity regarding the explanations offered by archaeologists, experts in the field of analyzing such ancient monuments. Apparently you reject those explanations based on the fact that you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made. So, okay, you do not know how the Puma Punka monuments were made. Nobody here seems to be disagreeing with you on that point. We accept the fact that you do not know. Do you have a point to make other than admitting your incredulity and lack of knowledge?
	Last edited by GeeMack; 7th June 2012 at 06:00 AM.

7th June 2012, 06:00 AM	#13
Tiktaalik Half True Scotsperson Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,987	While he specializes in movement of large blocks rather than the construction of such stones, www.theforgottentechnology.com is instructive and fun...

7th June 2012, 06:53 AM	#14
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua No, but "I do not understand this (even from a position of knowledge and expertise" does not make an argument either. In Steve's case, very clearly, it makes a request for understanding of how it was possible. He's new, so he may be surprised that he gets so many empty responses that do nothing but promote the skeptical credentials of the poster. "It's not aliens, duh" does not an argument make either (especially when no such claim has been made). How was it done, DD? Credulity does not make much of an answer, but it does at least assure those around you that you don't believe in aliens... I am merely responding to what I could understand of the OP. I am not currently looking into ancient masonry techniques. I would assume it was done over time with the tools at hand. I know a little bit more about meso america but not much. The Aztec variation of the Toltecs did some amazing rock carving as did the Olmec 2000 years earlier. I have never heard why they could not have done it without advanced techniques. Now what I would say is that some of the techniques may have been very slow. But I am always just amazed that when we have all this carving all over the world from the early neolithic on, someone singles out one set and says 'they could not have done it'. Cathedrals in Europe were often multi-generational and took hundreds of years to complete, and no one suggests some hidden mystery for them.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

7th June 2012, 06:57 AM	#15
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,708	Originally Posted by The Don Well as I understand it from reading the article the problem as stated is quite different from the actual problem. - The Tiwanaku had metal tools - The stone was considerably softer than portrayed Now I know this to be the case in Mayan and Mixtec construction, the stone was incredibly soft and got harder from exposure.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

7th June 2012, 07:32 AM	#16
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,169	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Because I said I do not know how it was done does not imply ignorance. It doesn't imply ignorance, it means ignorance. Steve, have you heard of the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity? You should look it up.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,169	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

7th June 2012, 07:35 AM	#17
Harpo Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: England's Green & Pleasant Land Posts: 872	Originally Posted by steve mccarron If you are interested, how do YOU think obelisks were erected. [/thread]
	__________________ "This statement cannot be proved" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased) Last edited by Harpo; 7th June 2012 at 07:37 AM.

7th June 2012, 07:41 AM	#18
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,908	@ steve mccarron Two questions. What does the relative hardness and difficulty of working granite and basalt have to do with structures made from sandstone? Sandstone was a common and popular building material all over the world in pre-modern era precisely because of its softness. Why does the amount of time required to do something with more primitive tools cast any doubt upon anything? Lots of stuff took longer to do. So what?

7th June 2012, 07:50 AM	#19
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,897	Ok, I am tired of bucking the trend. Let me join in. "I don't know the first thing about masonry, but I do know there's no aliens". Gosh, that does feel good. I know no more than I did, and neither does the OP. But only one of us wants to and it's the other guy, so who cares? So far, we have no reason to suppose he believes in aliens. In fact, given that's a stonecutter (even though nobody ever gave him a test or a certificate? what's that fallacy again?), we can reasonably assume that he wants to know how it was done. I may be wrong, he may reveal that he wants to know how to summon aliens to do it for him. He might, at that, he's new and that's always suspicious... After all, why ask at a skeptics' forum? Because people do ascribe it to aliens. It's a smart place to look for people who know how to show it wasn't. Alas...
	__________________ Things I have learned at jrEf: not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.

7th June 2012, 08:02 AM	#20
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	History is loaded with "How did they do that" It is what makes these things so interesting. We can speculate forever about the who why and hows. The point remains, someone sometime figured it out. A classic example was Caesars' second bridge over the Rhine, constructed in a "few days" Historians for centuries had scoffed at this notion, but the details had never been tested. A few years back a team of army engineers under the guidance of archeologists decided to see just how long such a bridge should have taken using only surviving instructions and techniques of the Romans. The results were the subject of a documentary. The first pylon to be driven took almost an entire day, and many began to fear the story truly was a legend. At the end of the second day they were driving pylons in 45 minutes. The commander of the engineers suggested that the Romans, with their experience could get that time down to 20 minutes. The final outcome was not the understanding of how fast they built the bridge, but in fact it could have been done a lot faster if they had chosen too.

7th June 2012, 08:07 AM	#21
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by quadraginta @ steve mccarron Two questions. What does the relative hardness and difficulty of working granite and basalt have to do with structures made from sandstone? Sandstone was a common and popular building material all over the world in pre-modern era precisely because of its softness. Why does the amount of time required to do something with more primitive tools cast any doubt upon anything? Lots of stuff took longer to do. So what? I can field this - using copper tools on their own, granite is virtually unworkable. The Egyptians got around this in their typical pragmatic style. They would fashion a copper saw with a straight blunt edge. Sprinkle sand in the desired cutting point and let abrasion do its things. Slow, time consuming but ultimately very pleasing to the Pharaoh paying their bills

7th June 2012, 08:44 AM	#22
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not. I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge. I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise. I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson. But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic. At least one of you says that iron tools were used. I did not know this. It's a move forward from an earlier comment that stone tools were adequate.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 08:46 AM	#23
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,908	Originally Posted by MG1962 I can field this - using copper tools on their own, granite is virtually unworkable. The Egyptians got around this in their typical pragmatic style. They would fashion a copper saw with a straight blunt edge. Sprinkle sand in the desired cutting point and let abrasion do its things. Slow, time consuming but ultimately very pleasing to the Pharaoh paying their bills You're fielding in the wrong ballpark. Steve started his OP with an exposition on his personal testament to the difficulty of working granite and basalt, and segued from that into something about the Pumapunku stonework ... ... which is made from sandstone. Sandstone is quite workable by any number of tools, from tools made from the metals available to the Tiwanaku at the time to tools made from harder stone. As you point out, even granite is workable with techniques available to that era's tech. And the evidence is clear that they were willing to take whatever time was needed. If you're not in a hurry it's amazing what can be accomplished.

7th June 2012, 08:50 AM	#24
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Have you ever worked granite? Where did you hear of this method, who suggested it, is there any evidence, can you get a straight cut when the copper starts to warp and stretch sideways. Have you seen this done on a large slab of basalt or granite?????
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 08:54 AM	#25
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Sandstone is a generic term, some cut blocks will give you papercuts if you get to close. Spoken with all the asertiveness of the blitheley ignorant. Amazing what you can achieve with time, but short on facts just bold slogans. Tut, tut..
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 08:55 AM	#26
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by quadraginta You're fielding in the wrong ballpark. Steve started his OP with an exposition on his personal testament to the difficulty of working granite and basalt, and segued from that into something about the Pumapunku stonework ... ... which is made from sandstone. No the site is a mix of sandstone and andesite, which is a soft basalt. My point was if someone could work granite, then techniques for andesite would also exist

7th June 2012, 08:57 AM	#27
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Actually, Andesite is more difficult stone to work in this way than basalt, can you say why?
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 08:58 AM	#28
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Have you ever worked granite? Where did you hear of this method, who suggested it, is there any evidence, can you get a straight cut when the copper starts to warp and stretch sideways. Have you seen this done on a large slab of basalt or granite????? Yes - here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286157/ The documentary spends about 15 minutes with Arab stone cutters who demonstrated the technique

7th June 2012, 09:12 AM	#29
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,908	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not. I don't think you have been very clear about which explanations you find unconvincing. You might want to share that part first. Quote: I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge. I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise. I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson. But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic. At least one of you says that iron tools were used. I did not know this. It's a move forward from an earlier comment that stone tools were adequate. I don't know if they worked in iron, but they certainly worked in bronze (the material the cleats were made from that went into those "H" shaped holes), which is harder than the early iron tools were, anyway. I see no reason stone tools could not have been used as well, since they would have had access to stone far harder than sandstone. Flint or obsidian would certainly do the job. If you're not in a hurry, that is.

7th June 2012, 09:16 AM	#30
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Sandstone is a generic term... Spoken with all the asertiveness of the blitheley ignorant. You call yourself a stone mason and believe that "sandstone" is a generic term. Wow. Just. Wow. Quote: Amazing what you can achieve with time, but short on facts just bold slogans. Tut, tut.. This deserves another.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

7th June 2012, 09:20 AM	#31
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Sorry, that is not Andesite it is oolitic limestone, the same as cotswold stone. Easily hewn, easily cut with metal tools, easily worked with carpenters tools. It's like carving cheese. They use the same tools now as we did for our first buildings. The jad pick and racer to extract the stone. You cannot do this even with a slightly softer basalt as andesite has been called by one of your contributors
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 09:22 AM	#32
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,908	Originally Posted by MG1962 No the site is a mix of sandstone and andesite, which is a soft basalt. My point was if someone could work granite, then techniques for andesite would also exist I don't disagree. My understanding was that the big stones (the ones with the 'blind' holes and precision joinery) were sandstone, and that the andesite was used for facings and carvings.
	Last edited by quadraginta; 7th June 2012 at 09:23 AM.

7th June 2012, 09:24 AM	#33
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Obsidian is to brittle, you would take an age to make a tool out of it, only for it to shatter, same with flint. If you were carving a soft limestone without to much fossil inclusion you might get away withn it, but otherwise no. Did you know that when a castle was built, there were more blacksmiths than any other tradespersons, including the masons. Simply to keep the masons in chisels and to keep them tempered.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 09:31 AM	#34
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	It amazes me how many times people who should know better make sweeping statements about the durability and hardness's of various types of stones with little or no knowlege. That is why I have tried to make the point that the use of the word sandstone was being done generically as if we are supposed to accept by term only its softness and type. Just because something is made of sandstone does not make it easier to work. Your sarcasm has no place here.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

7th June 2012, 09:33 AM	#35
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I am asking in the absence of any evidence what production methods contributors might think were used in the manufacture of the masonry. I am of the opinion that there has not been a convincing explanation. For some reason, some of you seem to think this is a personal attack on this site, it is not. You are saying you don't know how the monuments were made. We are willing to agree that you don't know. No argument there, eh? Quote: I am not arguing from incredulity and lack of knowledge. You aren't arguing for anything. You are admitting your incredulity and your lack of knowledge. So? Quote: I am very knowlegable and that presents a problem with the accepted so called expertise. Very knowledgeable or not, you've admitted that you do not know how the Puma Punku monuments were made. Do you have a point other than to admit your incredulity and lack of knowledge? Quote: I thought we would have a chat about the stone and you might be interested in my viewpoint as a skilled craftsperson. Do you have a viewpoint other than saying you don't know how and don't believe it was done according to conventional explanations offered by experts in the relevant archaeology? Quote: But somehow, not one of you has entertained this. Instead, I have had comments about my spelling, my ignorance, without wanting to discuss this issue and my statement that I find the accepted claims of manufacture simplistic. I have entertained this. I've asked a few times if you have a point to make other than declaring your ignorance and incredulity. Do you?
	Last edited by GeeMack; 7th June 2012 at 09:41 AM.